Tag Archives: communication

Why science needs advertising

When did Technology become so sexy?

The world of complicated wires, circuit boards, indecipherable code and ugly machines has graduated from the awkward reclusive teenager to the entrepreneurial Silicon Valley 20-something.

And that’s brilliant.

But why is science, technology’s long-standing partner in crime, still perceived as an activity reserved for kids in classrooms or ultra-intelligent lab-coat-sporting researchers? Why do science lovers feel the need to almost be apologetic in their ‘nerd’-dom? When will science be cool?

We’re living at a point in time where technology looks like this:


While science looks like this:


Both are generalisations of course, and neither capture all the intricacies and wonder of the two topics, but on first look it’s clear what the difference in perception is: technology takes me into the future; science takes me back to school.

The theoretical physicist Edward Teller said: ‘The science of today is the technology of tomorrow’, but sometimes this is taken too literally when it comes to showing everyone what science is all about. People get exposed to the finished good which technology brings us – and rightly so; turning a learning in science into a tangible, marketable product is no mean feat – but the incredible discoveries and how the application of science into game-changing technology came to be never seems to make news.

Let me give you an example of what I mean: the iPhone 5s fingerprint scanner. The functionality of this neat piece of tech has been widely reported – it is amazing that a fingerprint scanner has been incorporated into a smartphone; it is incredible that radio signals are transmitted into the skin to work out if the finger is actually attached to a living body; and it is useful that you can scan your finger to authorise payments in the app store. All these accomplishments in technology make for a great product and I’m so glad that it’s not seen as geeky to use the touch of your finger to unlock your phone.

But what I think is truly remarkable is the science behind that tech. Did you know that the scanner is made up of lots of tiny little cells, all smaller than the width of a ridge of your fingerprint (look at your finger right now – that’s pretty damn small) and when you put your finger on the circle, certain cells come into contact with your finger (the ones touching the tops of the ridges), whilst the rest stay inactive? The active cells complete a circuit (so there are lots of possible circuits which could be completed with the number of cells on the scanner), but if the correct finger is touching the scanner, the particular circuit which matches your personal fingerprint will be active, and lead to the phone being unlocked.

And do you know the reason why fingerprints are all unique and not one other human being on this planet has the same one as you? (Not one other person!) It’s because DNA dictates generally how skin forms (which, of course, is the same for most people), but the particular ridges of your fingerprints are determined by your position in the womb and the exact composition and density of the amniotic fluid that surrounded you when each ridge was formed. The chances of this happening twice, even with identical twins, is so low that it’s deemed impossible.

Is it just me that finds all that totally astounding?!

There’s the argument that people don’t want to know the inner workings, the ‘science-behind’ and the raison d’être of technology when they’re simply reading their newspaper on Sunday or their smartphone on their commute. There’s the argument that people just want to play with their new toy, or push the limits of their new sound system, or put their feet up while their new robot hoover cleans their flat – they’re not bothered about what goes on inside.

Well I say that’s rubbish.

Why do block-buster movie DVDs include the director’s commentary and the deleted scenes?

Why do we make documentaries on the life and times of serial killers?

Why are programmes like ‘Grand Designs’ and ‘Megastructures’ such hits?

Why do conspiracy theories gain such tract with the media?

We humans love finding out what goes on behind closed doors. We humans love stories, and telling stories for that matter. We humans love dreaming and being inspired and knowing things and thinking ‘what if?’

Science just needs to be communicated in a way that allows anyone, not just those who are knowledgeable on the subject, to tune in easily and see the wonder for themselves.

It’s all fine and well finding people who can simplify the mechanics of science into a few easy to digest paragraphs, but it’s the incorporation of those messages into iPhone fingerprint scanner press releases; it’s the communication of these facts bundled up as part of the story as opposed to a separate ‘in depth’ box at the side of an article; it’s the use of aspirational wording and the choice of great photography; it’s the design beautification and user-experience optimisation of science-related websites and magazines…that brings science out of its exclusive after-school club into the free-drinks-for-all street party.

And that’s where advertising comes in. Advertisers are experts at changing perceptions. Advertising is built upon facts and research and testing and case studies, and you’ll hear most industry experts stating that the one thing you need to do is tell a compelling story to keep your audience engaged. Brands exist only in the consumers’ mind – so if you want your company to succeed, you better start listening to those you’re talking to.

We need to stop assuming people don’t want to know; we need to stop ring-fencing the inspiring science communication for schools and young people; we need our strongest communicators, along with our cleverest scientists, to be given more freedom to talk on the matter; we need to find humour and humans – they do exist in the sector! – when we talk about science; we need to be inspired ourselves and use good old-fashioned enthusiasm and its contagious nature to fuel passion and wonder amongst everyone.

I’m not suggesting universities and science labs and newspapers and broadcasters all hire advertising agencies, as it’s not like there’s a particular product to be sold, but everyone can learn from the consumer-centric nature of communications which are successfully produced by the best agencies. It’s not a case of dumbing down, it’s framing messages in a way that will make people want to listen, become empowered and go on to discuss without feeling like they have no place talking about it.

Science is incredible, and really, it’s just such a shame that not everyone gets to experience that wonder. Yes, we want to get into schools and ‘get them while they’re young’, but wouldn’t it be remarkable if we could, not just once but all the time, get people excited and simply, in awe, of the world around them?

It’s what they did with technology after all…